Capital punishment
- Thread starter Mycernius
- Start date
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
For 2008, the average Murder Rate of Death Penalty States was 5.2, while the average Murder Rate of States without the Death Penalty was 3.3 <-- found these statistics. Capital Punishment doesn't seem to be deterring murders, or you could read that as it would be far worse without the death penalty.
Just my impression, but most of the people supporting capital punishment seem to know little to nothing about the effects of nature and nurture. They come across as just all moral outrage, and while we need moral outrage, I think we should also understand that it's at times just a very self-interested mechanism, a product of evolution, and temper it with a good understanding of science.
Just my impression, but most of the people supporting capital punishment seem to know little to nothing about the effects of nature and nurture. They come across as just all moral outrage, and while we need moral outrage, I think we should also understand that it's at times just a very self-interested mechanism, a product of evolution, and temper it with a good understanding of science.
The Dunadan
Man of the ancient path.
- 18 Jul 2010
- 69
- 1
1a, 2b, and 3a are my answers.
Okay, lets get practical intead of theories, i will give an example;
In Turkey, there is no capital punishment.. There is terrorist leader who is responsible for killing thousands of people, even innocent women and babies, is currently locked up in a jail.. He even has better standarts than an avarage criminal in jail, because decline in his health would mean the state is trying to kill him indirectly.. With his rights and lawyers, he is still in charge of the terrorist group indirectly , still actively commiting terrorist attacks against Turkey.. Even without the fact that he is still a terrorist leader, he is responsible for death of thousands.. Although capital punishment may be considered inhuman or unfair, is it fair for him to live in a good standart life after all he has done ?
In Turkey, there is no capital punishment.. There is terrorist leader who is responsible for killing thousands of people, even innocent women and babies, is currently locked up in a jail.. He even has better standarts than an avarage criminal in jail, because decline in his health would mean the state is trying to kill him indirectly.. With his rights and lawyers, he is still in charge of the terrorist group indirectly , still actively commiting terrorist attacks against Turkey.. Even without the fact that he is still a terrorist leader, he is responsible for death of thousands.. Although capital punishment may be considered inhuman or unfair, is it fair for him to live in a good standart life after all he has done ?
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
I don't know, if his death would result in the prevention of the deaths of many others, then capital punishment might be the best way to go.
I don't care that a murderer's standard of living is higher than that of common criminals, so long as that person is off the streets.
Scientists are uncovering ever more evidence that suggest lives are determined by genetics and nurture, so figuring out how these people differ might be a way to prevent unnecessary deaths. Life wasn't fair to them, that some were born with a lack of empathy (necessary for true human connection), or between a mix of genetics and poor environment, became people lacking self control, or empathy. That I was born with a relatively functioning brain (I can empathize and demonstrate enough self control that I'm not a danger to others), and was adopted into a good family, is just pure luck, I could've been born a psychopath, or with a temper and terrible self control, on the other end, I could've been born into a birth family that loved me from the start, and without all my health conditions (some of which make my life more socially isolated). It's all luck, it's quite often unfair, and I feel we should be spare with moral condemnation, only seeking to give as many people the chance to live a good life as we can.
I don't care that a murderer's standard of living is higher than that of common criminals, so long as that person is off the streets.
Scientists are uncovering ever more evidence that suggest lives are determined by genetics and nurture, so figuring out how these people differ might be a way to prevent unnecessary deaths. Life wasn't fair to them, that some were born with a lack of empathy (necessary for true human connection), or between a mix of genetics and poor environment, became people lacking self control, or empathy. That I was born with a relatively functioning brain (I can empathize and demonstrate enough self control that I'm not a danger to others), and was adopted into a good family, is just pure luck, I could've been born a psychopath, or with a temper and terrible self control, on the other end, I could've been born into a birth family that loved me from the start, and without all my health conditions (some of which make my life more socially isolated). It's all luck, it's quite often unfair, and I feel we should be spare with moral condemnation, only seeking to give as many people the chance to live a good life as we can.
Nuala
Hell's Finest Daughter
- 15 Jul 2004
- 1,725
- 39
I am a creature filled with hate for those who would harm innocents. The death penalty should be the answer, shouldn't it? However, it's not the solution. Murdering someone who has murdered doesn't fix the problem. They should by all means be committed to life in prison. They should never get out. They forfeited the right to live in our society when they committed the crimes they did.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
Ather, I suspect those meddling, endlessly-moralizing Europeans are trying to deny Turkey the right to capital punishment, as a condition for joining the EU. Why not extradite that terrorist to the US? We'd be happy to give his case the finality it deserves.
"Scientists are uncovering ever more evidence that suggest lives are determined by genetics and nurture, so figuring out how these people differ might be a way to prevent unnecessary deaths. Life wasn't fair to them, that some were born with a lack of empathy (necessary for true human connection), or between a mix of genetics and poor environment, became people lacking self control, or empathy. That I was born with a relatively functioning brain (I can empathize and demonstrate enough self control that I'm not a danger to others), and was adopted into a good family, is just pure luck, I could've been born a psychopath, or with a temper and terrible self control, on the other end, I could've been born into a birth family that loved me from the start, and without all my health conditions (some of which make my life more socially isolated). It's all luck, it's quite often unfair, and I feel we should be spare with moral condemnation, only seeking to give as many people the chance to live a good life as we can."
This argument seems inconsistent to me. You don't wish to deal with murderers on a moral level, but wish to explain it all on the basis of science and genetics. If so, then scientific rationality suggests that, for the good of the human race, these deviants should be eradicated from the gene pool. Moral condemnation should have nothing to do with this process.
Then in saying that "life wasn't fair to them," you seem to be resorting to moral authority, after all. But human DNA isn't concerned a bit about fairness. So fairness and other moral terms aren't relevant to the point.
In fact, execution of certain criminals can be justified on moral grounds or as a matter of DNA science.
"Scientists are uncovering ever more evidence that suggest lives are determined by genetics and nurture, so figuring out how these people differ might be a way to prevent unnecessary deaths. Life wasn't fair to them, that some were born with a lack of empathy (necessary for true human connection), or between a mix of genetics and poor environment, became people lacking self control, or empathy. That I was born with a relatively functioning brain (I can empathize and demonstrate enough self control that I'm not a danger to others), and was adopted into a good family, is just pure luck, I could've been born a psychopath, or with a temper and terrible self control, on the other end, I could've been born into a birth family that loved me from the start, and without all my health conditions (some of which make my life more socially isolated). It's all luck, it's quite often unfair, and I feel we should be spare with moral condemnation, only seeking to give as many people the chance to live a good life as we can."
This argument seems inconsistent to me. You don't wish to deal with murderers on a moral level, but wish to explain it all on the basis of science and genetics. If so, then scientific rationality suggests that, for the good of the human race, these deviants should be eradicated from the gene pool. Moral condemnation should have nothing to do with this process.
Then in saying that "life wasn't fair to them," you seem to be resorting to moral authority, after all. But human DNA isn't concerned a bit about fairness. So fairness and other moral terms aren't relevant to the point.
In fact, execution of certain criminals can be justified on moral grounds or as a matter of DNA science.
Nuala
Hell's Finest Daughter
- 15 Jul 2004
- 1,725
- 39
Two wrongs will never make a right, RolandtheHeadless. You're old enough to know this, so what's with you?
You're basically saying that homosexual, handicapped, and the mentally infirm should be put to death because they are in a way also deviants. That's a pretty bold statement, sweetie. I don't think you can back it up very well, so let's not talk about eradicating something from the gene pool unless you're ready to stand up to the enormity of what you're actually saying.
Half-n-Half
先輩
- 17 Jul 2007
- 920
- 70
I don't mean to put words in Roland's mouth, and I'm sure he is more than capable of defending himself, but I doubt that is what he is saying. You should re-read his post, especially the two sentences right before your quote.
He is making a counterpoint to a previous post and argues that science alone shouldn't decide the life of a human being. I doubt he is advocating this practice, but again Roland knows himself better than I. Although, I myself am inclined to disagree that it would be "scientifically rational" to eradicate people from the gene pool. In fact, I'm not so sure it's even possible to come up with a purely scientific reason to do this.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
This has nothing to do with the debate.... it's just a diatribe against the EU with no substance as far as the debate goes.
If determinism is the reality, and science brings more evidence everyday that it may very well be the reality, then how is it moral to send a person to death that couldn't have done any differently? It's fair to lock them up for the sake of other people's safety.
And no, that's not what scientific rationality suggests. We don't have enough evidence to even say that's what it suggests. We don't know whether this person was deficient from the beginning, meaning they couldn't empathize and had violent tendencies purely due to genes, or whether empathy and self-control were 'switched off' due to a poor early environment to begin with. Nor do we know that it wasn't just a mutation that wouldn't affect their children... what science suggests is that we need more research into the differences between them and us, we need to look into interventions, for example, I was reading of drugs in the trial stages that linked the area associated with empathy to the necessary part of the brain, and enabled psychopaths to empathize.
Prevention rather than retribution born out of moral outrage is what I'm suggesting.
No, human DNA isn't concerned about fairness, but to give as many of us a better chance at a decent life as possible, we need to be concerned with making things as fair as possible,
Neither...
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
Thank you, Half-n-Half. It's a pleasure to exchange comments with someone who actually bothers to read.
"If determinism is the reality, and science brings more evidence everyday that it may very well be the reality, then how is it moral to send a person to death that couldn't have done any differently? It's fair to lock them up for the sake of other people's safety."
That sounds good in theory. In actual practice, however, even mass murderers are sometimes released before serving their life sentence by corrupt or incompetent officials. Exhibit A to this argument is the Lockerbie bomber. Isn't it funny how this guy is still alive, after supposedly being at death's door? Even funnier how British Petroleum was awarded lucrative Libyan oil concessions, right after this terrorist's release.
Real justice would have meted out the death penalty to the Lockerbie bomber. If so, there would be no possibility that he'd ever trouble us again.
"If determinism is the reality, and science brings more evidence everyday that it may very well be the reality, then how is it moral to send a person to death that couldn't have done any differently? It's fair to lock them up for the sake of other people's safety."
That sounds good in theory. In actual practice, however, even mass murderers are sometimes released before serving their life sentence by corrupt or incompetent officials. Exhibit A to this argument is the Lockerbie bomber. Isn't it funny how this guy is still alive, after supposedly being at death's door? Even funnier how British Petroleum was awarded lucrative Libyan oil concessions, right after this terrorist's release.
Real justice would have meted out the death penalty to the Lockerbie bomber. If so, there would be no possibility that he'd ever trouble us again.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
Nothing is perfect, but my argument would be that he should never have been released. On the reverse side, innocent people have been executed, even with the more advanced forensics we have these days.
I still don't understand how capital punishment, purely retributive, is real justice. Vengeful killing had a good purpose in times before prisons. Killing the man who killed your relative removed a threat to you and your family.... thus I see it as a product of evolution, but with prisons as an option (given they are never released were it deemed they were a real threat to others), it's unnecessary in terms of the prevention of more murders.
I guess it would be interesting to know just how you define justice. I define it as fairness, and in light of determinism as a very likely possibility, the death penalty isn't fair.
I still don't understand how capital punishment, purely retributive, is real justice. Vengeful killing had a good purpose in times before prisons. Killing the man who killed your relative removed a threat to you and your family.... thus I see it as a product of evolution, but with prisons as an option (given they are never released were it deemed they were a real threat to others), it's unnecessary in terms of the prevention of more murders.
I guess it would be interesting to know just how you define justice. I define it as fairness, and in light of determinism as a very likely possibility, the death penalty isn't fair.
Nuala
Hell's Finest Daughter
- 15 Jul 2004
- 1,725
- 39
Oh, I know very well that he said murderers, but I believe that executing one group of people based on their actions, keeping in mind the factor of genetics and how they were raised, would also open the floodgate on the execution of groups of people not necessarily contributing to the gene pool.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
I'm sorry I snapped at you in that other thread, as I now doubt that you ever intended to give me offense. Even if written words aren't your forte, you do seem intelligent, and are undoubtedly good at other things.
Nuala
Hell's Finest Daughter
- 15 Jul 2004
- 1,725
- 39
The reason for most people against capital punishment is, that the "criminal" is a production of society. If a person, is not pushed into crime because of society, he/she wouldn't do it.. Or she has some mental disorders, psychological illnesses that causes irrational actions, in some cases hurting someone..
If the only thing standing between money and the criminal is a human, he has two choices, he will either turn back, or deal with him. Maybe he will be "merciful enough" to just hit him with a bat and render him unconcious, or will just kill him.. Because, if someone has fallen enough to steal, it is not quite a big fall to murder.. He still needs to steal, if the difference is just a couple of years, why not, its worth the risk..
We think jail is enough because of the lifes we are in.. We live like we want, posting in a forum while eating potato chips, thinking about our future hopefully, with our freedom.. And that freedom is the most important thing for us, we can't even bear the idea of living in a jail for a lifetime. They can.. Because they don't perceive the life as we do, their life is not filled with joy.. Sometimes jail is better for them..Is it their fault, or is it the society thats to blame.. Do they kill other people or commit crimes generally because of society, or is it just, easier ? How can we understand it ? Do everyone who experienced horrific events end up as psychopat ? If the life hasn't been good for you, is the only other way crime ? Then, everyone can blame society and go on a stealing spree, or rapekill a pretty girl because the things he lived was unfair and never been loved.. There are those, who uses their problems as an excuse.. Because they have no life, nothing to fear.. They have only their "life". Everyone fears death.. Someone may risk jail for raping and killing an innocent, but not their life.. Even if they do, i can at least be sure, that my money will not be used for funding a sick man who were unable to control his animalistic instincts for a lifetime.. Life is hard and unfair.. If a man wasn't able to deal with it, its not right for an innocent to pay the prize with his/her life.. It shouldn't be that easy.
If the only thing standing between money and the criminal is a human, he has two choices, he will either turn back, or deal with him. Maybe he will be "merciful enough" to just hit him with a bat and render him unconcious, or will just kill him.. Because, if someone has fallen enough to steal, it is not quite a big fall to murder.. He still needs to steal, if the difference is just a couple of years, why not, its worth the risk..
We think jail is enough because of the lifes we are in.. We live like we want, posting in a forum while eating potato chips, thinking about our future hopefully, with our freedom.. And that freedom is the most important thing for us, we can't even bear the idea of living in a jail for a lifetime. They can.. Because they don't perceive the life as we do, their life is not filled with joy.. Sometimes jail is better for them..Is it their fault, or is it the society thats to blame.. Do they kill other people or commit crimes generally because of society, or is it just, easier ? How can we understand it ? Do everyone who experienced horrific events end up as psychopat ? If the life hasn't been good for you, is the only other way crime ? Then, everyone can blame society and go on a stealing spree, or rapekill a pretty girl because the things he lived was unfair and never been loved.. There are those, who uses their problems as an excuse.. Because they have no life, nothing to fear.. They have only their "life". Everyone fears death.. Someone may risk jail for raping and killing an innocent, but not their life.. Even if they do, i can at least be sure, that my money will not be used for funding a sick man who were unable to control his animalistic instincts for a lifetime.. Life is hard and unfair.. If a man wasn't able to deal with it, its not right for an innocent to pay the prize with his/her life.. It shouldn't be that easy.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
It's true that not everyone who grows up in a poor environment become murderers, and the reverse is also true, not everyone who grows up in a loving family becomes a good person. Is that choice? Some evidence suggests that there are differences between those who escape a poor environment and become good productive members of society, and the majority that don't. In the ghettos of America, it's usually the confident that join gangs, and the shier ones that get their heads down, study hard, and escape the ghetto by getting a good education. Part of confidence seems just inborn. Children from the same loving family, will have children that are both very confident and happy, and those that are shy and less friendly. Those characteristics have been observed almost from birth. We are all sort of gifted with a setpoint of happiness, and we can tamper with that a little, meaning a curmudgeon can become less curmudgeonly, but they'll never be the positive, friendly, confident person that some others are.
So part of the argument is not only poor environment, but both just the perhaps genetic inability to, for examples, empathize or control one's fury (as I've seen in one child, who despite great efforts on his family's part, including visits to counselors and professionals, still couldn't get their eleven year old child not to lash out and hit someone when he got angry. He was a strong kid, the backhand I saw wasn't anything funny), or a combination of genetics and environment, as in a black kid in the ghetto being confident, joining a gang, and landing himself in jail, as opposed to the shy guy in the ghetto who goes to University and becomes a lawyer.
As to determinism, there are a lot of things we 'decide' subconsciously, and they aren't exactly logical. For example, a woman who had a good relationship with her father will be more attracted to a man with similar facial features, but those who didn't have a good relationship will be more attracted to a man with very different facial features, and avoid a man who has similar facial features to her father. Now I'm sure a woman isn't actually consciously thinking 'that guy has similar facial features to my father, I should avoid him'. It's not exactly logical though, as every guy who has similar facial features with a woman's father is not going to have the same character, personality, etc. That's just an example, and while it isn't connected to the issue, it does illustrate the subconscious 'choices' we make, which I'm sure has some impact on a killer's 'choice' in some cases.
Going even further, it was found that a lot of criminals had three things in common. They had small prefrontal cortexes (the area of the brain that helps regulate emotion, decide rational choices, etc), very high testosterone levels, and poor childhoods. That may indicate that if a person had a small prefrontal cortex, high testosterone, but a good childhood, that they very well may turn out at least to be safe people to be around, or that a person who had a poor childhood, high testosterone, but a large prefrontal cortex, may very well turn out to be careful but ambitious members of society that are generally safe to be around. Just hypothesizing, as we don't know enough yet to say with more certainty.
In short, we know enough to know that there certainly are both genetic and environmental factors that push people one way or the other, we know it's not just one factor in most cases, but a combination of factors, but we don't know enough to say these factors produce this kind of person with certainty, as we don't know all the factors yet. We also know that most of what we do is emotionally driven, highly dependent on how one's brain is wired, as well as what experiences one has had. We also know that there may be interventions, and we simply need more info.
Going onto a different point, I think there are a lot of thieves who couldn't even with any seriousness consider murder. My roommate couldn't, but he broke and entered into homes as a teen. My brother couldn't, even though he rolled drunk people coming out of the bar for their money (means he hit them over the head, and took their money).
Going on here... there's quite a difference between the years one serves for stealing, and the years for murder. It's not a small step for a more rational criminal.
Capital punishment as a deterrent doesn't seem to work, I read that Freakonomics (a book) was saying that were the death penalty carried out right after the murder, that it would be an effective deterrent, but cold blooded killers know that the process takes a long time, they know that they can appeal the decision multiple times, and that's if they're caught. A lot of cold blooded killers will see the death penalty as more reason to just not get caught, and they'll take more precautions. A person in rage isn't thinking rationally enough to consider the consequences of killing someone (a jealous husband who finds another man in bed with his wife may not think 'hey, wait a minute, if I kill this guy, I may face the death penalty).
But lets say we tried to make the death penalty an instant process, the killer was executed promptly after killing someone. In a few cases, this would be cut and dried, but in a lot of cases, we may be sending the wrong person to their death. Even with our advances in forensics, including DNA evidence, and the long court process, there are still people being exonerated of murder after sitting on death row for 15 years of their lives. Would we want to raise the margin of error, quite possibly executing a lot of innocent people?
Here's an interesting excerpt
The statistics found on the United States that I put up in the first post on this page are interesting as well. There's simply a lack of evidence that the death penalty is a good deterrent, and in the United States, the evidence contradicts the theory of the death penalty as an effective deterrent.
Wow, a longer post than I had intended...
So part of the argument is not only poor environment, but both just the perhaps genetic inability to, for examples, empathize or control one's fury (as I've seen in one child, who despite great efforts on his family's part, including visits to counselors and professionals, still couldn't get their eleven year old child not to lash out and hit someone when he got angry. He was a strong kid, the backhand I saw wasn't anything funny), or a combination of genetics and environment, as in a black kid in the ghetto being confident, joining a gang, and landing himself in jail, as opposed to the shy guy in the ghetto who goes to University and becomes a lawyer.
As to determinism, there are a lot of things we 'decide' subconsciously, and they aren't exactly logical. For example, a woman who had a good relationship with her father will be more attracted to a man with similar facial features, but those who didn't have a good relationship will be more attracted to a man with very different facial features, and avoid a man who has similar facial features to her father. Now I'm sure a woman isn't actually consciously thinking 'that guy has similar facial features to my father, I should avoid him'. It's not exactly logical though, as every guy who has similar facial features with a woman's father is not going to have the same character, personality, etc. That's just an example, and while it isn't connected to the issue, it does illustrate the subconscious 'choices' we make, which I'm sure has some impact on a killer's 'choice' in some cases.
Going even further, it was found that a lot of criminals had three things in common. They had small prefrontal cortexes (the area of the brain that helps regulate emotion, decide rational choices, etc), very high testosterone levels, and poor childhoods. That may indicate that if a person had a small prefrontal cortex, high testosterone, but a good childhood, that they very well may turn out at least to be safe people to be around, or that a person who had a poor childhood, high testosterone, but a large prefrontal cortex, may very well turn out to be careful but ambitious members of society that are generally safe to be around. Just hypothesizing, as we don't know enough yet to say with more certainty.
In short, we know enough to know that there certainly are both genetic and environmental factors that push people one way or the other, we know it's not just one factor in most cases, but a combination of factors, but we don't know enough to say these factors produce this kind of person with certainty, as we don't know all the factors yet. We also know that most of what we do is emotionally driven, highly dependent on how one's brain is wired, as well as what experiences one has had. We also know that there may be interventions, and we simply need more info.
Going onto a different point, I think there are a lot of thieves who couldn't even with any seriousness consider murder. My roommate couldn't, but he broke and entered into homes as a teen. My brother couldn't, even though he rolled drunk people coming out of the bar for their money (means he hit them over the head, and took their money).
Going on here... there's quite a difference between the years one serves for stealing, and the years for murder. It's not a small step for a more rational criminal.
Capital punishment as a deterrent doesn't seem to work, I read that Freakonomics (a book) was saying that were the death penalty carried out right after the murder, that it would be an effective deterrent, but cold blooded killers know that the process takes a long time, they know that they can appeal the decision multiple times, and that's if they're caught. A lot of cold blooded killers will see the death penalty as more reason to just not get caught, and they'll take more precautions. A person in rage isn't thinking rationally enough to consider the consequences of killing someone (a jealous husband who finds another man in bed with his wife may not think 'hey, wait a minute, if I kill this guy, I may face the death penalty).
But lets say we tried to make the death penalty an instant process, the killer was executed promptly after killing someone. In a few cases, this would be cut and dried, but in a lot of cases, we may be sending the wrong person to their death. Even with our advances in forensics, including DNA evidence, and the long court process, there are still people being exonerated of murder after sitting on death row for 15 years of their lives. Would we want to raise the margin of error, quite possibly executing a lot of innocent people?
Here's an interesting excerpt
The statistics found on the United States that I put up in the first post on this page are interesting as well. There's simply a lack of evidence that the death penalty is a good deterrent, and in the United States, the evidence contradicts the theory of the death penalty as an effective deterrent.
Wow, a longer post than I had intended...
Mycernius
The Hairy Wookie
- 4 Feb 2005
- 4,644
- 203
- Thread starter
- #118
He has terminal cancer. Just upset because he is not dying quick enough for you?
Baseless assertion. care to bring some evidence to that statement?
There has always been some evidence that he never did it. Many in the Scottish legal world and others believe that the evidence was very minimal to convict and could even be wrong, but there was pressure to convict someone for the bombings. Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi has always protested his innocence even that he knows he is dying. There was also an appeal pending before his release on compassionate grounds.
Real justice is finding the truth, not a form of revenge.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
I haven't read into the Lockerbie bomber, but in light of Myrcenius' post, I take this back....
Lledargo
先輩
- 14 Jul 2010
- 486
- 12
Some parts of the US have capital punishment, I for one am against it, only because I believe anyone who has done something to make it to death row should actually suffer. Lethal injection is believe to be completely painless, and anyone who dies is able to escape the problems of life, after all, "death is not the worst that can happen." i would find it worse to be injured to the point of near death, then to be fatally injured.
Revenant
後輩
- 7 Mar 2005
- 634
- 38
And if it was found they were innocent?
A list of those who were on death row that were acquitted or the charges dismissed
Some of those people were on death row for 15, 20, even 30 years. You'd put them through suffering for that long? I don't believe you or most of us could actually do that.
A list of those who were on death row that were acquitted or the charges dismissed
Some of those people were on death row for 15, 20, even 30 years. You'd put them through suffering for that long? I don't believe you or most of us could actually do that.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
"He has terminal cancer. Just upset because he is not dying quick enough for you?" - Mycernius
Yes. When he was released, UK officials claimed he had only a few months to live. Now he's busy setting up a website and making a celebrity of himself.
"Even funnier how British Petroleum was awarded lucrative Libyan oil concessions, right after this terrorist's release." - Me
"Baseless assertion. care to bring some evidence to that statement?" - Mycernius
While the facts behind the deal remain murky, there is a clear connection that shows that my statement is far from baseless. See, e.g., MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos , which notes in part:
"Soon after al-Megrahi's release last year, BP acknowledged that it urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify his case. It reiterated that stance this week when four U.S. Democratic senators asked the State Department to investigate whether there was a quid pro quo for the Lockerbie bomber's release."
The article goes on to note that the Brits were unable to negotiate with Libya exception to the prisoner transfer agreement to cover al-Megrahi. Ghadaffi has always made it a priority to get his agent released, so that he could be given a hero's welcome in Libya. According to the above article, in fact:
"Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, said last year in comments aired on the Libyan television station he owns that al-Megrahi's release was a constant discussion point during trade talks — stretching back to Blair's government.
""In fact, in all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table," Gadhafi's son told al-Megrahi. "When British interests came to Libya, I used to put you on the table.""
Americans are fairly well outraged by this deal, and our Congress's investigation is continuing. However, we will probably never know the true facts.
"There has always been some evidence that he never did it." - Mycernius
If the defendant has a competent lawyer, there will always be "some evidence" he didn't do the crime he's accused of. Trials exist to balance the evidence and determine the truth. Once a verdict is rendered, it is presumed to be correct, unless reversed on appeal. Are you saying that UK courts are untrustworthy and unduly influenced by politics? Is there some valid reason why the verdict here is suspect?
Anyway, that argument is a red herring because doubt about the validity of the verdict played no role in this murderer's release. The Scottish justice minister claimed to be releasing the guy on "compassionate grounds" because he supposedly had only months to live. But honest and competent justice officials don't put compassion for a mass murderer above compassion for the relatives of victims, and society, who need to see that justice is served. And don't tell me that prisons in Scotland don't have medical facilities that could have cared for this man.
More than anything else, this case has convinced me that the death penalty ought to be preserved for mass murderers like terrorists and serial killers. A "life" sentence does not always mean what it suggests, so long as possibly corrupt or incompetent officials may shorten it. Society has an interest in seeing that justice is served not only in fact but in appearance.
There has been no justice for society and the relatives of the Lockerbie victims.
Yes. When he was released, UK officials claimed he had only a few months to live. Now he's busy setting up a website and making a celebrity of himself.
"Even funnier how British Petroleum was awarded lucrative Libyan oil concessions, right after this terrorist's release." - Me
"Baseless assertion. care to bring some evidence to that statement?" - Mycernius
While the facts behind the deal remain murky, there is a clear connection that shows that my statement is far from baseless. See, e.g., MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos , which notes in part:
"Soon after al-Megrahi's release last year, BP acknowledged that it urged the British government to sign a prisoner transfer agreement with Libya, but stressed it didn't specify his case. It reiterated that stance this week when four U.S. Democratic senators asked the State Department to investigate whether there was a quid pro quo for the Lockerbie bomber's release."
The article goes on to note that the Brits were unable to negotiate with Libya exception to the prisoner transfer agreement to cover al-Megrahi. Ghadaffi has always made it a priority to get his agent released, so that he could be given a hero's welcome in Libya. According to the above article, in fact:
"Gadhafi's son, Seif al-Islam Gadhafi, said last year in comments aired on the Libyan television station he owns that al-Megrahi's release was a constant discussion point during trade talks — stretching back to Blair's government.
""In fact, in all the trade, oil and gas deals which I have supervised, you were there on the table," Gadhafi's son told al-Megrahi. "When British interests came to Libya, I used to put you on the table.""
Americans are fairly well outraged by this deal, and our Congress's investigation is continuing. However, we will probably never know the true facts.
"There has always been some evidence that he never did it." - Mycernius
If the defendant has a competent lawyer, there will always be "some evidence" he didn't do the crime he's accused of. Trials exist to balance the evidence and determine the truth. Once a verdict is rendered, it is presumed to be correct, unless reversed on appeal. Are you saying that UK courts are untrustworthy and unduly influenced by politics? Is there some valid reason why the verdict here is suspect?
Anyway, that argument is a red herring because doubt about the validity of the verdict played no role in this murderer's release. The Scottish justice minister claimed to be releasing the guy on "compassionate grounds" because he supposedly had only months to live. But honest and competent justice officials don't put compassion for a mass murderer above compassion for the relatives of victims, and society, who need to see that justice is served. And don't tell me that prisons in Scotland don't have medical facilities that could have cared for this man.
More than anything else, this case has convinced me that the death penalty ought to be preserved for mass murderers like terrorists and serial killers. A "life" sentence does not always mean what it suggests, so long as possibly corrupt or incompetent officials may shorten it. Society has an interest in seeing that justice is served not only in fact but in appearance.
There has been no justice for society and the relatives of the Lockerbie victims.
Haruspex
先輩
- 30 Aug 2007
- 2,324
- 96
All courts operate on the basis that the judgement mat be wrong. The judges are experts of law and have the skills, competently, to identify the law, but as regards fact, and especially in criminal cases, revision of evidence is an important element. Criminal trials in the UK exist to determine whether the accused is/are guilty beyond reasonable doubt -the criminal standard of proof. The courts are not recognised as being able to determine the truth beyond doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt, which is not 100% certainty. Political powers exist exactly because of the fallibility of the court procedure, which does not differ from country to country.
- 7 Jun 2008
- 1,029
- 113
"All courts operate on the basis that the judgement mat be wrong."
Court judgments are presumed to be correct on appeal or when viewed by other authorities.
"The judges are experts of law and have the skills, competently, to identify the law, but as regards fact, and especially in criminal cases, revision of evidence is an important element."
Judges are also experts on finding the facts from disputed evidence, and on instructing juries on how to find facts in jury trials. Under certain circumstances, new trials may be ordered to hear overlooked or newly-discovered evidence. I'm not aware of that being an issue in the Lockerbie case.
"The courts are not recognised as being able to determine the truth beyond doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt, which is not 100% certainty."
True enough. Almost nothing can be determined to 100 percent certainty. The beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof is a high one for the prosecution to meet.
"Political powers exist exactly because of the fallibility of the court procedure, which does not differ from country to country."
I find this statement most curious. There is far more fallibility in the political process, which doesn't even purport to go by logic and rational evidence.
Btw, I'm an attorney with 29 years of experience in civil trials. I don't do criminal law, but am not entirely unfamiliar with that process. Our law here is derived mainly from the common law of England, so I doubt our two nation's systems are entirely different.
Court judgments are presumed to be correct on appeal or when viewed by other authorities.
"The judges are experts of law and have the skills, competently, to identify the law, but as regards fact, and especially in criminal cases, revision of evidence is an important element."
Judges are also experts on finding the facts from disputed evidence, and on instructing juries on how to find facts in jury trials. Under certain circumstances, new trials may be ordered to hear overlooked or newly-discovered evidence. I'm not aware of that being an issue in the Lockerbie case.
"The courts are not recognised as being able to determine the truth beyond doubt, only beyond reasonable doubt, which is not 100% certainty."
True enough. Almost nothing can be determined to 100 percent certainty. The beyond-a-reasonable-doubt burden of proof is a high one for the prosecution to meet.
"Political powers exist exactly because of the fallibility of the court procedure, which does not differ from country to country."
I find this statement most curious. There is far more fallibility in the political process, which doesn't even purport to go by logic and rational evidence.
Btw, I'm an attorney with 29 years of experience in civil trials. I don't do criminal law, but am not entirely unfamiliar with that process. Our law here is derived mainly from the common law of England, so I doubt our two nation's systems are entirely different.
Lledargo
先輩
- 14 Jul 2010
- 486
- 12
It is a fact that innocents are often found in every penal system, but it is also know that more often then not the person who has been convicted is actually guilty. I am not trying to say that we should torture people people who would normally have gotten the death penalty, but rather, they should live out their life in prison. because as I see it, life in prison, (someones actual life span, no just 40 years) would be a much worse punishment than death.
I said death is not the worst that can happen, and you asked, if we would want to put an innocent through many years of suffering. I must say, I would not want them to go through that suffering, but that is an argument for the death penalty, as, the quicker they are executed, the less suffering in jail they must endure.
